Re: Petition #1779

Purpose: This appeal has been filed to facilitate the construction of two new single family homes. Ordinance Section 27-1162(b)(1) refers to Ordinance Section 27-1160(c)(3)a., which requires a lot width of not less than

West: Single family residences
Neighborhood Characteristics: This is an older area of predominantly single family residences on medium to small-sized lots. Downzoning of the area from R-2(B) Two Family and RP-5 Planned Apartment Districts to R-1(B) Single Family District was recommended for approval by the City Planning Commission on September 13, 2004, but if approved, the downzoning would have no effect on the present appeal as the same ordinance requirements would still apply.
Total Tract Size: 80’ x 123’; .23 acre
Master Plan: The K.C.K. Land Use Plan, as amended November 13, 1989, designates this property for Medium Density Residential development.
Major Street Plan: Grandview Boulevard is designated a Collector street.
Advertisement: The Wyandotte Echo, September 15, 2004
Public Hearing: October 11, 2004
Public Opposition: None to date

PROPOSAL

Detailed Outline of Requested Action: C.H.W.C., formerly Catholic Housing of Wyandotte County, is carrying out an ambitious single-family redevelopment plan in the area from 10th to 14th Street south of Minnesota Avenue. This redevelopment includes the new subdivision of Cathedral Pointe,rehabilitation of existing residences, and the erection of new houses on vacant lots such as these. If the two lots in question were still under separate ownership, both could be built on under the current ordinance requirements. However, since they have now been combined under a single ownership, the minimum lot width requirements of the ordinance now apply. Hence the requested variances.
It should be noted that formerly, one of the two lots was narrower than the other. They will now be equal in width, and each will have a new, one-story bungalow with a rear-entry basement garage.
City Ordinance Requirements: Article III Sections 27- 46 – 27- 49 and Article XXI Sections 27-1082 – 27-1100

Five Conditions Set by State Statute:

The variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in the same zone or district; and which is not created by an action or actions of the property owner or the applicant.

The granting of the permit for the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents.

The strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance of which variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application.

The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare.

The granting of the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance.

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED

The variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in the same zone or district; and which is not created by an action or actions of the property owner or the applicant.

The size of the lots in question is an existing condition not created by any action of the present owner.

The granting of the permit for the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents.

Both of these lots contained residences in the past, and the construction of two new residences should not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners.

The strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance of which variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application.

As noted, if these lots remained under separate ownership both could be built on without variance. Strict application of the ordinance might therefore be considered an unnecessary hardship on the present owner.

The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare.

No adverse effect could be said to exist.

The granting of the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance.

The variance requested should conform to the general spirit and intent of the ordinance.

PREVIOUS ACTIONS

Not applicable.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals APPROVE case #1779 subject to all comments and suggestions outlined in this staff report.
ATTACHMENTSPlans

Sketch

REVIEW OF INFORMATION AND SCHEDULE

Action Board of Zoning Appeals

Public Hearing October 11, 2004

STAFF CONTACT: Larry K. Hancks

MOTIONS

I move the Board of Zoning Appeals APPROVE Case #1779 as meeting all the requirements of the City code and being in the interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare, subject to such modifications as are necessary to resolve to the satisfaction of City Staff all comments contained in the Staff Report; and the following additional requirements:

OR

I move the Board of Zoning Appeals DENY Case #1779, as it is not in compliance with the City Ordinances as it will not promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Kansas City, Kansas; and other such reasons that have been mentioned.